|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
Im pissed because its an immediate jump to DEI or to blame people for fucking fires when they are still actively occuring.
If you had a contractor build a swimming pool while allowing an apartment to collapse, it's not an attack on swimming pools to ask them what the fuck they were doing. Swimming pools can be great if you have the luxury, or they can be expensive to upkeep, be underused, and not fit the climate of where you live. It doesn't impugn the swimming pools to criticize the contractor's priorities and management and competence.
In this case, we have wildfires (or arson or both), property destroyed, property looted, and people dead. This is different from earthquakes and hurricanes because they can not only be prepared for, to an extent predicted, they can be mitigated and prevented. DEI can be good or bad but you don't even have to get that far.
You don't need a controlled experiment to see how badly Democrats comparatively govern with or without DEI. The option "imagine how much shittier it would be without DEI" is suspect. The result here is unacceptable by itself, on its own. The simple question to the contractor of "what were you doing while the apartment collapsed?" undermines his entire existence. No matter how beautiful the new zero edge state of the art swimming pool supposedly is.
In other places, heads would roll. DeSantis was right in that Republicans never get a break in these situations, and Democrats never get anything but a break. Nothing ever happens. Nobody resigns, nobody fired. Same with Afghanistan. Everyone paying attention sees the pattern.
On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
Stop being fucking divisive and help these people out. Its an active disaster jesus christ. At least with mass shootings we wait until its over before debating gun laws.
The really disgusting part to me is the talk of withholding aid. We all know if this wasnt happening in liberal california but in deep red Alabama that wouldnt come up once.
That's not out of special courtesy from one side, but that mass shootings are over almost as soon as they begin. The people debating whether Newsom and Democrats don't know how to manage water, forests, and fire departments, are generally not people who could be out there saving lives but are instead engaging in the free exchange of ideas - rather, the key is that during a disaster is the time when you can MOST get people to give a shit. Not weeks, months, or years after. Which is borne out by the fact that weeks, months, and years BEFORE a disaster, nobody can be made to give a shit about California's water, forest, firefighting, or criminal justice (arson?) issues. The moment of disaster carries the moment of opportunity, because it's the moment when reality reappears to disprove the fantasies that words let people live in.
People are not politicizing after a disaster, they have been politicizing since before the disaster, and simply use this chance as a continuation to say I told you so.
On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
When has a president or a party ever treated citizens experiencing disasters like this? It only seems to happen with Trump. Obama didnt come out and attack Chris Christie when the hurricane hit NJ. Biden didnt do it with hurricanes in Florida or the Carolinas. Trump and his ilks first play is to ALWAYS be divisive. It happened in Puerto Rico and its happening in California.
Grow up and be presidential for once in your fucking life. You represent ALL AMERICANs.
Hurricanes hitting Appalachia and Florida were both ascribed to Blumpf failing to stop climate change caused by Chinese coal, which it might be racist to refer to so instead I will call SARS-COAL-19 in this moment. People are also still furious with FEMA for the conditions in winter in North Carolina and the federal government's bureaucratic holdup of apparent needed help for the people there - I can explain in an addendum if for some reason the effects of the hurricane that hit months ago have fallen off your radar - even though I'm sure you'd normally be debating it now since we've waited until the hurricane has passed, making now the opportune time to do a postmortem.
It is not that people are politicizing these things. These things are politicized innately, due to the fact they are or aren't results of policies, that politicians make. The politics is not separate from the real world. These are the real consequences from what really happens due to what people do or don't do. Empty reservoirs, no leadership, dry counties, empty hydrants, incompetent departments, wasted billions. In this case, if people get elected to focus on racialism instead of competently doing their jobs, and become hissyfit children who refuse to follow basic common sense and get people killed, that's a problem. If people didn't "politicize" by identifying that, it would still be a problem, the problem is not the messenger.
|
Don't feel like addressing the rest of your inane drivel, but you should really not make stupid statements like 'climate change is caused by Chinese coal IM TOTALLY NOT RACIST THO!!!' when shit like that is fact checked by a single google search query without even getting into such complicated things like 'per capita numbers' or 'exports' or anything else.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1007454/cumulative-co2-emissions-worldwide-by-country/
Like, you're just straight up wrong and biased and very obviously racist with that garbage, so maybe stop being a terrible human being and start making actual logical arguments instead of 'DEI causes forest fires, California is proof of it!!'
|
I just dont know where to begin.
No one is blaming trump for climate change, they are upset that he refuses to acknowledge reality and is actually pushing forward policies that could accelerate it instead if slowing it down or mitigating it.
The government in California and LA was immediately attacked because of course they must be doing something wrong. They are liberals. Theres no evidence or anything, its just bad faith speculation. Do you know that there are like 80mph winds going on?
Trump is leading the charge on this. He doesnt know a god damn thing aboout forest fires or wildfires. He should be acting as a uniter and figuring out how to help instead of stirring people up and trying to cast blame. Maybe he is right and theres blame to go around, but guess what? If there isnt he will never apologize or acknowledge he was quick to jump the gun.
Its sad.
|
On January 14 2025 01:34 Salazarz wrote:Don't feel like addressing the rest of your inane drivel, but you should really not make stupid statements like 'climate change is caused by Chinese coal IM TOTALLY NOT RACIST THO!!!' when shit like that is fact checked by a single google search query without even getting into such complicated things like 'per capita numbers' or 'exports' or anything else. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1007454/cumulative-co2-emissions-worldwide-by-country/Like, you're just straight up wrong and biased and very obviously racist with that garbage, so maybe stop being a terrible human being and start making actual logical arguments instead of 'DEI causes forest fires, California is proof of it!!'
But that is how things work nowadays. It doesn't matter if something can be factchecked easily, because the targets just don't do that, and view anyone who does as the enemy and thus ignore anything they say.
I think the last decade has shown that you can just constantly spout bullshit forever, and it just doesn't matter with regards to your chances of getting power. Facts are simply irrelevant.
|
On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Show nested quote +Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). Show nested quote +If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude.
You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it.
I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern.
|
On January 14 2025 02:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 01:34 Salazarz wrote:Don't feel like addressing the rest of your inane drivel, but you should really not make stupid statements like 'climate change is caused by Chinese coal IM TOTALLY NOT RACIST THO!!!' when shit like that is fact checked by a single google search query without even getting into such complicated things like 'per capita numbers' or 'exports' or anything else. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1007454/cumulative-co2-emissions-worldwide-by-country/Like, you're just straight up wrong and biased and very obviously racist with that garbage, so maybe stop being a terrible human being and start making actual logical arguments instead of 'DEI causes forest fires, California is proof of it!!' But that is how things work nowadays. It doesn't matter if something can be factchecked easily, because the targets just don't do that, and view anyone who does as the enemy and thus ignore anything they say. I think the last decade has shown that you can just constantly spout bullshit forever, and it just doesn't matter with regards to your chances of getting power. Facts are simply irrelevant.
They are for all teams though. It is not like China is not actually one of the worst countries for the environment, they clearly are (just look at how they treat global fisheries). It is just that per capita is a great way to make them look better, but the earth doesn't really care about per capita numbers.
The China defense is that the product they manufacture for the most part does not stay in China, and the Western consumers happily still buy it knowing that it is produced by basically slave labour, with little to no safety, with horrible to non existent environmental. We want more shit at lower prices, that is all 99% of people everywhere care about.
Hell a huge percentage of "recycling" industry was basically collecting plastics curbside, cubing it, shipping it to China (imagine the carbon so far), knowing that when it got there the vast majority was burned and only the valuable parts were recycled. But our governments, including the left of the left all patted themselves on the back, and treated all the tons shipped as "recycled". This is with everyone in the know, knowing that from a purely environmental standpoint local landfills were a better choice. It is true that if we spent way more we could have actually recycling facilities here for plastic that would do a better job than the landfill, but no one wants to pay for them. And everyone in the actual know also understands that the real problem is not dealing with the plastic after, it is the consumerism that causes all to buy way, way, way to much shit. And have it sure shit quality that it ends up in the trash, or that we get bored and want something new, or all the completely made up trends/coolness reasons that make something in and out of style.
Left talks a lot better about the environment than the right, but the vast majority of the people are just as shitty in their day to day. Most are unwilling to make small changes that would make big impacts. And the fucking far left countries, China, Venezuela, you are having to argue if they are the worst or not, rather than as some sort of beacon to shoot for. Everyone is pretty shit.
|
Northern Ireland24261 Posts
On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern.
You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached.
You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that.
|
On January 14 2025 01:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
Im pissed because its an immediate jump to DEI or to blame people for fucking fires when they are still actively occuring. If you had a contractor build a swimming pool while allowing an apartment to collapse, it's not an attack on swimming pools to ask them what the fuck they were doing. Swimming pools can be great if you have the luxury, or they can be expensive to upkeep, be underused, and not fit the climate of where you live. It doesn't impugn the swimming pools to criticize the contractor's priorities and management and competence. In this case, we have wildfires (or arson or both), property destroyed, property looted, and people dead. This is different from earthquakes and hurricanes because they can not only be prepared for, to an extent predicted, they can be mitigated and prevented. DEI can be good or bad but you don't even have to get that far. You don't need a controlled experiment to see how badly Democrats comparatively govern with or without DEI. The option "imagine how much shittier it would be without DEI" is suspect. The result here is unacceptable by itself, on its own. The simple question to the contractor of "what were you doing while the apartment collapsed?" undermines his entire existence. No matter how beautiful the new zero edge state of the art swimming pool supposedly is. In other places, heads would roll. DeSantis was right in that Republicans never get a break in these situations, and Democrats never get anything but a break. Nothing ever happens. Nobody resigns, nobody fired. Same with Afghanistan. Everyone paying attention sees the pattern. Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
Stop being fucking divisive and help these people out. Its an active disaster jesus christ. At least with mass shootings we wait until its over before debating gun laws.
The really disgusting part to me is the talk of withholding aid. We all know if this wasnt happening in liberal california but in deep red Alabama that wouldnt come up once. That's not out of special courtesy from one side, but that mass shootings are over almost as soon as they begin. The people debating whether Newsom and Democrats don't know how to manage water, forests, and fire departments, are generally not people who could be out there saving lives but are instead engaging in the free exchange of ideas - rather, the key is that during a disaster is the time when you can MOST get people to give a shit. Not weeks, months, or years after. Which is borne out by the fact that weeks, months, and years BEFORE a disaster, nobody can be made to give a shit about California's water, forest, firefighting, or criminal justice (arson?) issues. The moment of disaster carries the moment of opportunity, because it's the moment when reality reappears to disprove the fantasies that words let people live in. People are not politicizing after a disaster, they have been politicizing since before the disaster, and simply use this chance as a continuation to say I told you so. Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 20:43 Sadist wrote:
When has a president or a party ever treated citizens experiencing disasters like this? It only seems to happen with Trump. Obama didnt come out and attack Chris Christie when the hurricane hit NJ. Biden didnt do it with hurricanes in Florida or the Carolinas. Trump and his ilks first play is to ALWAYS be divisive. It happened in Puerto Rico and its happening in California.
Grow up and be presidential for once in your fucking life. You represent ALL AMERICANs. Hurricanes hitting Appalachia and Florida were both ascribed to Blumpf failing to stop climate change caused by Chinese coal, which it might be racist to refer to so instead I will call SARS-COAL-19 in this moment. People are also still furious with FEMA for the conditions in winter in North Carolina and the federal government's bureaucratic holdup of apparent needed help for the people there - I can explain in an addendum if for some reason the effects of the hurricane that hit months ago have fallen off your radar - even though I'm sure you'd normally be debating it now since we've waited until the hurricane has passed, making now the opportune time to do a postmortem. It is not that people are politicizing these things. These things are politicized innately, due to the fact they are or aren't results of policies, that politicians make. The politics is not separate from the real world. These are the real consequences from what really happens due to what people do or don't do. Empty reservoirs, no leadership, dry counties, empty hydrants, incompetent departments, wasted billions. In this case, if people get elected to focus on racialism instead of competently doing their jobs, and become hissyfit children who refuse to follow basic common sense and get people killed, that's a problem. If people didn't "politicize" by identifying that, it would still be a problem, the problem is not the messenger.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china?country=CHN~USA
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=CHN~USA
Might want to get informed.
The argument "but China emits more" is just you preferring that poor countries stay poor so their energy use is low.
You get mad when Taylor Swift tells people to care for the environment but flies in a private jet. It's exactly the same thing. If people can get richer they will and it's the same for countries.
Might as well ask the US to get poorer so they reduce their carbon footprint. Likely?
China was, and is, building a fuckton of coal power. They are building a fuckton of everything they can because their economy and the amount of energy they are using have exploded over the last decades.
China is trending far better than the US atm in most metrics.
|
On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that.
Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here?
Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines.
|
As if calling BJ a racist, white supremacist nazi wasn't bad enough, recently people have even stooped so low as to not call BJ a racist, white supremacist nazi.
Its no wonder Trump won.
|
On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines.
I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer.
It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice.
|
On January 14 2025 06:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
As if calling BJ a racist, white supremacist nazi wasn't bad enough, recently people have even stooped so low as to not call BJ a racist, white supremacist nazi.
Its no wonder Trump won.
Hahaha. Ok that was pretty good
|
On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice.
Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick.
|
On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern.
Lol at “deplorable.” I mean, “how should I react when I know I’m being propagandized” is an interesting and difficult question but right now you seem to be at “I should like, share, and subscribe” so it might be more useful to first focus on whether that’s the right response, and why/why not. I mean, I honestly feel like if anti-cancel culture BJ has been at the wheel instead of anti-woke BJ you would already have started from “we need the full context”/“has the accused had a chance to respond”/“isn’t everybody being oversensitive/jumping to conclusions” by default. But because the propagandists’ axe to grind happens to also be an axe you’re always looking to grind, we bypassed all those cautious/contrarian impulses and went straight to valueless mockery.
I think the statement sucks but is of absolutely no importance. You think the statement sucks but also seem to think it’s important and relevant to the fires somehow. If I wrote down a list of the top 100 skills I think an assistant chief of the fire brigade should have, I don’t think “make smart statements about the importance of DEI” would have made my list. But weirdly, I don’t think it would make your list either, which is why it seems strange that you think this person’s apparent lack of that skill is of grave public import.
Possibly you’re taking all this at face value and you really believe that the assistant chief of the LAFD thinks married men trapped in burning buildings deserve to die. That would be troubling, I suppose. “Big if true” as they say. But to me that just doesn’t pass a basic plausibility test. Maybe when she’s done fighting some of the worst fires in LA’s history we could ask her to clarify if she really believes that before erecting the gallows?
|
On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for an extremely qualified black woman to pick.
Fixed that for you, just like I/we fixed that for you last time. And the time before that. And the time before that.
|
On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick.
Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead?
And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over?
|
On January 14 2025 07:03 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 02:16 BlackJack wrote:RIP to the LA fire victims but let’s be honest, if they need to be rescued from a fire they got themselves in the wrong place https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339In all seriousness, imagine smugly blaming a fire victim for being in the wrong place. An experienced firefighter should know that not everyone has the capability to flee a fire. Is she unaware of people with mobility issues and disabilities? The audacity to say something on a prerecorded interview and not edit that out is astounding. Nevermind if you will rescue me from the fire, what’s the gender of the person you sleep with? I’ll feel better dying from smoke inhalation if I know my first responder is LGBTQIA+. I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it. Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway. The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient. Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick. Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead? And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over?
Sure
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nears-supreme-court-pick-interviews-short-list/story?id=83047608
If you already have your pick selected you don’t have to interview a bunch of candidates, all whom happen to be black women.
|
On January 14 2025 09:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 07:03 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it.
Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway.
The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient.
Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick. Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead? And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over? Sure https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nears-supreme-court-pick-interviews-short-list/story?id=83047608If you already have your pick selected you don’t have to interview a bunch of candidates, all whom happen to be black women.
That doesn't support your argument, I don't know why you think it does. You can have the candidate you wanted through the whole process but if you don't know 100% all the possible skeletons in the closet you set up backup options to go through the option with your intended pick. That source itself cites anonymous sources about who the four names are. Its much more likely that those specific names are the ones the white house gave to float in the public to see if anything pops up on them that they haven't found. This is standard practice for any public search, you see it all the time with football coaches up and down the country.
Do you have any source that supports your claim that they weren't intending to pick KBJ the whole time?
|
On January 14 2025 09:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 07:03 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 05:57 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I think the right-wing media ecosystem crawling through public statements and messaging to find any way to blame the tragedies on DEI is fucking vile, and frankly dude, I’m pretty disappointed to see you trading in it.
Wrt the specific quote, I imagine the person’s point is something like “carrying fire victims out of burning buildings is a very small percentage of a firefighter’s job, we strive to keep people out of situations where that would be necessary in the first place,” and meanwhile, presumably, “in the extreme circumstance a victim needed to be carried to safety and was too heavy for me (as could also happen to a male firefighter), I would get another firefighter to help me do it.” Probably stupidly phrased, definitely defensive because the person is responding to an imagined sexist who says they’re not biologically qualified to do their job, but whatever, you anti-woke activists think everybody needs to chill out and stop getting offended so easily anyway.
The only reason we’re talking about this is because right-wing influencers saw a bunch of death and destruction in LA as a result of a natural disaster and thought “saying this is their fault because DEI will probably get a bunch of clicks.” And they were right! I think they’re fucking ghouls, though, and I’d hoped you’d have more decency than that. Instead you thought a flippant “RIP to the victims but…” prefix was sufficient.
Sorry to everyone for coming out of months of silence to scold someone’s tone before probably disappearing again but, well, here we are. I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick. Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead? And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over? Sure https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nears-supreme-court-pick-interviews-short-list/story?id=83047608If you already have your pick selected you don’t have to interview a bunch of candidates, all whom happen to be black women.
That is how DEI works. If there's a historic imbalance and there are candidates available, all of whom are equally qualified, then your selection consisting entirely of black women is perfectly fair and justified.
You'd have a point if there was no historic imbalance. Clearly it was not balanced, as I'm sure you would admit?
|
On January 14 2025 09:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2025 09:00 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 07:03 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:37 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 06:24 Billyboy wrote:On January 14 2025 06:08 BlackJack wrote:On January 14 2025 04:07 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2025 02:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 13 2025 07:50 ChristianS wrote:On January 13 2025 07:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I think if you want to get on the high horse and scold the DEI critics then at a bare minimum you shouldn’t have the person who heads DEI for the department blaming people that die in a fire for finding themselves in that situation. I don’t “have the person who heads DEI for the department” doing anything, I know you know I’m not in charge of that. I also don’t know where that clip is even from, because accounts like @EndWokeness generally won’t cite sources, because they are, fundamentally, propagandists. But I assume it’s from some video or commercial the FD put together for recruitment or something, presumably *not* to be put out in the midst of a massive humanitarian disaster. If you tell me your motivation here is that you just feel strongly that fire departments need to be more sensitive to the feelings of victims in their public messaging, I won’t believe you. Rescuing people from fires is a pretty core competency to being a firefighter. Stated as broadly as that, sure, that’s the mission statement. In the context of wildfires, though, you’re mostly talking about tracking fires, evacuating people in the path of danger, and containing the fire when you can. For someone to be inside a burning building they’d probably have to have ignored an evacuation warning, which is stubborn but, of course, I still hope the fire department will be able to save them. Again, I don’t think it’s a very good response to a sexist saying “women shouldn’t be firefighters because they won’t be able to carry a 250-lb man out of a burning building” to say “well he shouldn’t be in that burning building anyway” but fundamentally, the sexist is still wrong. It’s pretty rare for that to be what the job demands, and there’s no reason every member of the department needs to be able to do it (and indeed, many white men also can’t). If you want to smugly scoff at people that need rescuing like they are personally inconveniencing you then you shouldn’t be immune to criticism. Not insisting anyone be immune to criticism, but I think a post like the tweet you linked is exploiting news about a humanitarian disaster to grind an axe about DEI, despite there being absolutely no reason to think it has any relevance to the ongoing disaster. I think that’s ghoulish and vile. I’m half-inclined to pull “I know people in LA I’m worried about” for rhetorical weight but honestly I shouldn’t have to. Last I’ve heard my LA friends are fine (thank God) but you don’t need to know I have a personal connection to know the people losing their homes are human beings and this is probably not a great time to make what I think you’re thinking of as “jokes” about it. The “jokes” are bad, the political point they’re making is bad, and the motivation behind it is fundamentally craven. I know you’re inclined to follow those kinds of accounts but I thought you might have a little more common sense and decency than they do. This shit sucks, dude. You’re right that the video wouldn’t have came in front of me if not for right-wing activists with a political axe to grind using the spotlight light of the LA fires to dig stuff up. I just don’t really care about stuff like that. What’s the response I’m supposed to have? “Well that’s a really deplorable defense of DEI but I wouldn’t have heard it if not for the likes of Breitbart so I’ll let it slide”? Faulting victims for dying in a fire is a shitty thing to say and right-wing grifters didn’t make anyone say it. I think my post does a good job at addressing a recurrent theme offered here that the only reason to oppose DEI is because you are against Diversity or Equity or Inclusion, ergo you’re a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever. If the response to someone’s concern about DEI lowering standards/competency for firefighters is “if you need to be rescued from a fire then it’s probably your fault” then you can’t really blame them for their concern. You aren’t forced to abandon the reasonable skepticism you employ to all sorts of other forms of topics just because your personal bugbear of wokeness is attached. You just choose to do so and get pissy when people point it out. While also doing the ‘you can’t say anything about DEI without being called an …ist’ shtick despite on this and many other occasions nobody in here calling you that. Can you elaborate on what skepticism I’m abandoning here? Also there’s plenty of examples of calling people racists or sexists for opposing DEI initiatives. Nobody calls me an -ist here purely out of a matter of decorum. There’s plenty of examples such as “you must not think black women are qualified to be SCOTUS justices if you disagree with Biden declaring he will select a black woman.” Then it’s simply a matter of reading between the lines. I'm not sure why you bring this up over and over and over again. It is not remotely the dunk you think it is. When Dana White says that he is picking an exchampion for the next Main event, does that mean that he only considered ex Champions? Nope he is teasing the result and building suspense by teasing the answer. It dunks the opposite way that you seem to have never considered the possibility that a black women was simply the best choice. Except that’s not the same as what happened. Biden didn’t have KBJ pre-picked before declaring he would nominate a black woman. Instead he said he would nominate a black woman and then went out looking for a black woman to pick. Can you source that claim? Because it sounds awfully naïve to me to think that this is not looked at consistently. It is you belief that Trump has no one lined up right now if one of them drops dead? And then also, why no anger about Trumps identity politics? He boasted that he picked his two based on age first qualification second. But that kind of identity is OK, no tears for all the older, more qualified people passed over? Sure https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nears-supreme-court-pick-interviews-short-list/story?id=83047608If you already have your pick selected you don’t have to interview a bunch of candidates, all whom happen to be black women. That doesn't support your argument, I don't know why you think it does. You can have the candidate you wanted through the whole process but if you don't know 100% all the possible skeletons in the closet you set up backup options to go through the option with your intended pick. That source itself cites anonymous sources about who the four names are. Its much more likely that those specific names are the ones the white house gave to float in the public to see if anything pops up on them that they haven't found. This is standard practice for any public search, you see it all the time with football coaches up and down the country. Do you have any source that supports your claim that they weren't intending to pick KBJ the whole time?
So your belief is that he intended to pick KJB through the “whole process” and evidently that process began before he was even the nominee for President and before he would even have a vacant seat to nominate someone to. Okay… believe what you want. Your evidence that Biden was always going to select KBJ is exactly zero.
Let me guess, you probably think Newsom also had someone lined up when he promised to nominate a black woman to fill a vacant Senate seat. Yet the person he chose didn’t even reside in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
